Sunday, May 5, 2019

MARK ZUCKERBERG'S GLOBALIST ASSAULT ON AMERICA'S FREE SPEECH - It conflicts with the globalist billionaire's open borders agenda

Big Tech vs Free Speech: Breitbart Exposed the Masters of the Universe in 2018 Townhall



Masters of the Universe
Collage
ALLUM BOKHARI
3,031
6:11

Note from senior management: In April of 2018 Breitbart News held a town hall event that shed light on the dangers of Big Tech. As these self-appointed Masters of the Universe continue to show their true agenda, which is to censor conservatives, this video and its content is more relevant than ever.

The key takeaways from the Breitbart News Town Hall, entitled “Masters of the Universe: Big Tech Vs. Free Speech and Privacy,” focus on Google, Facebook, and Twitter meddling in elections, censoring conservatives, and ignoring the privacy and security of their users:
1. The outcome of elections now depends on the tech giants
Dr. Epsteinwhose research has focused on the impact of tech bias on voter choices, explained the massive impact that the masters of the universe can have on democratic elections.
“We estimated that if these companies were all working together and supporting the same candidate, and really pulling out all the stops and using all the methods they have to manipulate, they could shift 10 percent of the voting population of America, with no-one knowing that they had done this, and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to track.”
“10 percent could be shifted — that’s a lot of votes, with no-one knowing that they’ve done this.”
Epstein also talked about how the tech giants are already interfering in politics.
“The fact is, we don’t know what rules they’re applying. There’s lots of evidence now that they are systematically suppressing political views that they don’t like. And not just on the right, by the way, but progressives as well – they just go after anyone they want to and there’s nothing we can do about it, there’s no recourse.” Epstein views Facebook as a threat to elections along with Google.
2. Big tech has already meddled in American elections 
At the town hall, psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, an expert on how search engines affect voter decisions, explained his research showing that the Masters of the Universe already had a measurable impact on the 2016 presidential election — in favor of Hillary Clinton.
“There are two main things that we have found,” said Epstein. “We came up with a system, a monitoring system for monitoring search results on Google, Bing and Yahoo for nearly six months before the election in 2016. This story about our findings was broken by the Washington Post in early 2017 and here’s what we found. We found that Google’s search results favored Hillary Clinton in all ten positions of those search results on the first page for almost all of those six months leading up to the election. Now that’s enough to shift two to three million votes, at least, without anyone knowing that they have been manipulated.”
3. We still know very little about who’s responsible for censorship, and how it’s done
Breitbart News senior editor-at-large and president of the Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer used the town hall to highlight the lack of transparency on the part of tech giants. Since his comments at the town hall, exclusive stories from Breitbart have shone some sunlight into the inner workings of Silicon Valley censorship — including Google and YouTube’s manual interference in so-called “controversial search queries” including “abortion” and “abortions,” but much about tech censorship remains hidden from view.
“On the one hand, you have situations on YouTube where they shut down a site or say it is inappropriate,” Schweizer said. That could be somebody at a relatively junior level at YouTube who just decides ‘I don’t like what Dennis Prager’s teaching is on Judeo-Christian values or whatever, it’s offensive to me so I’m just going act in my capacity to censor it,’ they do that all the time.”
Schweizer also highlighted radicalism from low-level employees at tech companies. “Part of the problem is that it is not just a leadership issue, it’s not just a problem of corporate policy, it’s a question of Google employees or YouTube employees deciding to take matters into their own hands,” he said.
“There are several proposals, one of the suggestions is that we should take Google’s algorithm make it a public utility, that’s one of the solutions” continued Schweizer. “That is an interesting idea, I do not know if that is the best solution. The other one is to require some truth-in-advertising, or some transparency, so we know what is in the algorithm.”
4. Tech platforms aren’t free — you pay them with your personal data
At the town hall, Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow explained how big tech makes money.
“Selling our info is the correct answer and that’s what we’re here to talk about tonight” said Marlow “You guys are not the consumers, you guys are actually the product, you guys are being sold and it’s being done completely clandestinely. Never in the history of the American republic and really the Western world have so few unelected people achieved so much power and so much influence in such a short period of time and they’ve done it almost entirely clandestinely and without free flow of information. They know where you are right now and yet we don’t even know their names.”
Dr. Epstein also highlighted how far Google goes to collect user data — including reading drafts of your emails before they’ve even been sent.
“All gmails, outgoing, the ones you write, and incoming — no matter what email service they’re coming from — they are all recorded, analyzed, every detail is put into your personal profile.”
“Big news companies all use Google to run their email system,” continued Dr. Epstein. “All those emails are running through Google servers. Google has full access — I’m talking about some of the top journalists in the world, who are investigating Google — they’re sharing all of their communications, all of their work products, all of the drafts — they’re sharing it all with Google!”
“I don’t know any major media source, except maybe — believe it or not — Breitbart that doesn’t run [emails through Google servers].”
5. A free and open internet is a major threat to mainstream media
This is why mainstream media gatekeepers like CNN’s Oliver Darcy are the most militant in their efforts to strip social media platforms of their disruptive power. They are the people, after all, who are being disrupted.
At the Breitbart News town hall, Ann Coulter explained how this disruption helped issues suppressed by the mainstream media rise to the fore.
“The Internet is so important for getting news. No one would even know what is going on in South Africa” she continued, referring to the ongoing racial killings of white South African farmers.”
“No one under fifty is getting their news from the mainstream media anymore,” Coulter also added.

THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WAGES WAR ON AMERICA!

"GOP estb. is using the $5 billion border-wall fight to hide up to four blue/white-

collar cheap-labor programs in lame-duck DHS budget. Donors are worried that

salaries are too damn high, & estb. media does not want to know." 

 

TOP EVIL CORPORATIONS LOOTING AMERICA

Goldman Sachs TRUMP CRONIES – CLINTON CRONIES
JPMorgan Chase OBAMA CRONIES
ExxonMobil
Halliburton BUSH CRIME FAMILY CRONIES
British American Tobacco
Dow Chemical
DuPont
Bayer
Microsoft
Google CLINTON CRONIES
Facebook OBAMA CRONIES
Amazon
Walmart

 

GET THIS BOOK!

Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY

 Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s OBAMANOMICS TO SERVE THE RICH AND GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES.

 

NEW YORK — In the midst of a public relations nightmare, former White House Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Habib Powell took charge of Goldman Sachs’s global charitable foundation, helping to resurrect the big bank’s shattered image after it was implicated in practices that contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

GOOGLE WORKED TO RIG ELECTION FOR SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON TO KEEP THE FOREIGN INVADERS COMING!

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html

 

1.     Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”

2.     Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An executive nearly broke down cryingbecause of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.


3.     Immigration: Maintaining liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.


MARK ZUCKERBERG AND OTHER TECH BILLIONAIRES SAY HELL NO TO PAYING LEGALS LIVING WAGES… not when there’s boatloads of Chinese ready to take our tech jobs and work cheap!


“Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR



BARACK OBAMA POSITIONS MARK ZUCKERBERG of FAKEBOOK to be his global controller of propaganda for the Obama bankster funded third term for life.

http://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2018/09/fakebooks-mark-zuckerberg-will-be.html

MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR




Carlson: Where Are Congress, White House as Big Tech Cracks Down on Free Speech?







JEFF POOR
 181
1:09

Friday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson opened his show with a reaction to Facebook’s banning of so-called “dangerous” entities.
The Fox News Channel host offered a question to his viewers, which was as to where congressional leaders and the Trump administration were amid this “crackdown.”
“What about us? Who is standing up for us?” Carlson said. “Where are our leaders in Congress? Where is the White House? Nowhere. As long as big tech isn’t hassling them personally and directly, as long as their accounts remain open, they don’t seem to care.”
“They’re fools,” he continued. “Would any of these people get reelected in a country where left-wing tech companies control the terms of political debate? Can you really win a presidential election if Google opposes you? No, you can’t. Not a chance, not right now. Without free speech, there is no democracy. It’s time to stop lying about that.”
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

‘Real Time’ Panel: There Is a Problem With Facebook Deciding What Speech Is Worthwhile







IAN HANCHETT
 114
1:29
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” CNN Political Commentator Bakari Sellers, host Bill Maher, and New York Times columnist and MSNBC Contributor Bret Stephens said they do have a problem with Facebook determining what constitutes dangerous rhetoric.
Sellers said, “Facebook got it right, and I think it was the easy call to ban these three individuals, but it’s a slippery slope. … I mean, are they going to keep that same energy when it comes to someone like Franklin Graham, who is a Baptist minister, but who is a homophobic bigot, right? But he’s supported by the president of the United States. Are we going to keep that same energy? And my question is, are you going to have three white kids in Silicon Valley who are sitting in a cubicle decide what’s dangerous and what rhetoric they ban and what rhetoric they don’t? And I have a fundamental problem with that.”
Maher responded, “I do too.”
Stephens said, “[T]hey want to ban these horrible people, and they’re all horrible. We all recognize that. But then we’re going to get into a slippery slope, where Facebook becomes the arbiter of what can be said in their digital ‘public square,’ whatever it is, and the idea of this younger man determining what qualifies as worthwhile speech, I think is dystopian and terrifying.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Facebook, Google Pour Big Money into Lobbying Congress While Blacklisting Conservatives



Zuckerberg, Pichai-getty
Getty Images
SEAN MORAN
 1,298
7:02

Facebook and Google increasingly influence Congress as the social media giants censor conservative and alternative voices, dominate the Internet, and violate Americans’ privacy.

Facebook announced on Thursday that they have banned several conservative personalities such as Infowars host Alex Jones, Infowars contributor and YouTube personality Paul Joseph Watson, journalist and activist Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulus. The social media giant also banned Louis Farrakhan from its platforms.
Facebook said that they banned these personalities because they were “dangerous.”
Amid calls for greater regulation of social media companies’ potential anticompetitive behavior, censorship of conservative and alternative voices, and privacy violations, Facebook and Google have remained at the top of Open Secret’s database of top spenders lobbying Congress.
So far in 2019, Facebook spent $3,400,000 and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, $3,530,00 in lobbying Congress. Alphabet also ranked as the eighth total highest spender in lobbying in 2018, spending $21,740,000, while Facebook spent $12,620,000.
Facebook’s influence has continued to rise over the years. In the early years of President Barack Obama, Facebook spent below one million dollars in 2008 and 2009. From 2011 to 2018, Facebook’s lobbying spending skyrocketed and reached historic highs in 2018, when they spent $12.6 million.
In 2019, Facebook lobbied heavily on H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act, a Democrat bill which would restore the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission (FCC) net neutrality regulations, which arose as the result of Google’s heavy lobbying of the Obama administration. In 2019, Google also lobbied on the Save the Internet Act.
In 2018, one of Facebook’s bills on which they lobbied Congress was H.R. 2520, the Browser Act, sponsored by then Rep. and now Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), which would require social media companies such as Facebook and Google to obtain explicit permission from users for collecting their private data. The Browser Act would also stipulate that these social media companies cannot deny services to users who do not opt-in to these companies’ collection of their private data. In 2017, the Browser Act was the most important issue on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Blackburn said that her legislation would establish one set of rules that would balance the relationship between ISPs and Facebook and Google. The legislation would also prevent the social media giants from unfairly profiting off of Americans’ private data without their explicit consent.
“We need one set of rules for the entire internet ecosystem with the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] as the cop on the beat,” said Senator Blackburn. “The FTC has the flexibility to keep up with changes in technology and its principal mission is consumer protection. The BROWSER Act will enable consumers to make more educated decisions regarding the nature of their relationship with tech companies.”
In contrast, Alphabet’s most prominent issues in Congress in 2019 and 2018 related to labor and antitrust, as well as telecommunications and technology.
Facebook and Google’s dominance on the Internet has become increasingly apparent as Google has approximately 90 percent of web search traffic, whereas in digital advertising, Google and Facebook amount to nearly two-thirds of American digital ad spending, with Amazon at a “distant third” at under nine percent.
In 2018, Google lobbied Congress fourteen separate times on multiple pieces of legislation that would have increased liability for companies that enabled sex trafficking.
Facebook and Google’s influence in Congress extends to its trade group, the Internet Association. In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Internet Association spent $840,000. In total, the social media giants spent $2.6 million in 2018 for lobbying. In 2019, the association has spent $690,000 so far. Over the last two years, the Internet Association has focused on the Save the Internet Act as well as on legislation that would increase edge providers’ liability for hosting content that enables sex trafficking.
Facebook and Google influence political elections as well. During the 2018 election cycle, Alphabet donated:
  1. $223,269 to former Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s (D-TX) Senate campaign to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a prominent critic of Silicon Valley censorship.
  2. $149,741 to Rep. Jacky Rosen’s Senate campaign (D-NV) to unseat Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV).
  3. $135,625 to Rep. Josh Harder’s congressional campaign.
  4. $124,508 to former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s unsuccessful re-election campaign.
  5. $97, 364 to former Sen. Claire McCaskill’s failed re-election campaign.
During the 2018 midterm elections, Facebook donated:
  1. $75,005 to O’Rourke’s Senate campaign.
  2. $37,954 to Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) 2017 special Senate election against former Alabama judge Roy Moore.
  3. $34,534 to Heitkamp’s Senate election.
  4. $31,326 to McCaskill’s Senate campaign.
  5. $29,387 to Rosen’s successful campaign to unseat Heller.
As Facebook and Google and other social media giants continue to increasingly censor and blacklist conservative and alternative voices, more and more conservative voices have called for addressing the social media giants’ dominance of the Internet. Facebook and Google’s influence in Congress also relates to political confrontations; during a hearing in December 2018, the then-ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee delivered a sharp rebuke of Republican accusations of Google’s political bias affecting its search engines, even though Google was his top donor.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said  he envisions three potential remedies for big tech’s violation of free speech and dominance on the Internet.
Cruz’s three solutions include:
  1. Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
  2. Antitrust measures to address big tech’s dominant status on the Internet.
  3. Addressing potential cases of fraud and deception.
“No one wants to see the federal government regulating what is allowed to be said, but there are at least three potential remedies that can be considered by Congress or the administration or both,” Cruz said.
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Foreign Money Floods Silicon Valley as Trump Battles Chinese Influence over Tech World



The Associated Press
Chinatopix via AP, File
JOHN HAYWARD
 130
5:40

An article at Vox.com on Wednesday fretted about the amount of foreign money bubbling through Silicon Valley — particularly from the authoritarian regimes of China and Saudi Arabia — and offered a little backhand praise to the Trump administration for taking the problem seriously.

In a nutshell, Vox and its partners at Recode were deeply concerned about the amount of money Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is plowing into American tech firms, frowning as the heir to the Saudi throne frolicked with tech titans like Bill Gates and Tim Cook despite the death of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi agents. The article castigated Silicon Valley for only briefly recoiling from those blood-soaked Saudi billions before returning to business as usual.
Brief mentions were made of big money rolling in from other quarters, including economic basket cases with repressive political systems and wealthy oligarchs such as Russia and Nigeria, before Vox found a ray of hope in the Trump administration’s determined opposition to the most troubling tech investor of all, China:
The debate around accepting money from China pits two opposing bedrock political beliefs about China against each other: Either China is a highly sophisticated US adversary coyly infiltrating Silicon Valley through communist-aligned actors who arrived here to steal intellectual property or it is just like any other foreign player seeking financial gains – but is being unfairly targeted by a belligerent government that stereotypes all Chinese actors.
Whatever the reality, the Trump administration’s posture toward China is having consequences. Quietly, over the past year, as many as a dozen China-linked firms have scaled back their US investment programs, some dramatically, Recode has learned, due to more aggressive behavior by a regulatory body called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS.
The gist of the CFIUS saga is that Republicans led the charge to increase the power and resources of the agency after President Donald Trump talked up the danger posed by China and brought his “America First” philosophy to Washington.
The more muscular CFIUS is having a major effect on the tech world, whose biggest names love to virtue-signal in the media but had very little problem taking money from oppressive regimes until the federal agency began reviewing their deals with foreign governments more closely to protect “critical technology.”
Word is spreading through the tech industry that taking Chinese money has become more trouble than it is worth because even when approval is ultimately granted, the review process can grind on for months — an expensive delay in the fast-paced tech world. American tech firms that have not been completely scared away from doing business with the Chinese are beginning to drive harder bargains with them and take greater notice of the weird, intrusive demands Chinese firms often make of foreign partners.
Other foreign investments have come under scrutiny as well, but Vox went to some lengths to describe how Saudi investments have fared better than most others, in part because the massive SoftBank investment firm managed to create a little “distance” between itself and the Saudi royal family.
The notion of the Trump administration going easier on allies in Riyadh than adversaries in Beijing was referenced several times, although another obvious reason for different levels of scrutiny would be the Chinese predilection for technology theft, one of the most important issues the U.S. has been pressing them to address during trade negotiations.
A larger issue is hinted at throughout the discussion of foreign money in Silicon Valley: the spread of authoritarian politics through globalism. The tendency of Western social media companies to become more comfortable with authoritarian ideals due to sustained contact with repressive societies like China and Russia is just one highly visible aspect of the problem.
As the Vox article points out, it is getting harder to find truly “clean” money. Many of the most aggressive, deep-pocketed investors are linked to repressive regimes. The vaults of giant international firms have “blood money” mixed in with their stacks of relatively clean bills.
If U.S. tech firms develop the type of moral sensibility encouraged by activists, the most morally compromised investors will simply send their money elsewhere, and thanks to globalism, they have plenty of reasonable second choices if their plans to spend money in America are thwarted. We are moving past the era where the U.S. had enough tech and financial muscle to force other nations to keep their noses clean if they wanted a piece of the hottest investment action.
Besides the question of human rights offenses perpetrated by deep-pocketed authoritarians, there is the problem of their money emanating from financial systems incompatible with the American understanding of free-market democracy. Authoritarian regimes with tight grips on their populace and none of the Western world’s concerns about workers’ rights, environmental sensitivity, or income inequality have a cold-blooded edge over companies concerned about those things. State-run enterprises can bring a lot of pressure to bear against truly private corporations that are not backed by national treasuries.
China is currently experiencing some turbulence from workers tired of being treated like disposable drones. The Chinese Communist Party and its billionaire oligarchs respond to their complaints by reminding them China’s competitive edge depends on working people to death for limited compensation in a manner no Western firm could get away with.
Some of those repressive regimes have much better P.R. operations than others. The Vox article dwells at great length upon Saudi Arabia but only briefly mentions Qatar and its “checkered human rights record and support for terrorism.” Qatar is, in fact, a virtual slave state with political ties to some of America’s most aggressive enemies, and it has spent a fortune developing investment clout, lobbying muscle, and media influence in the United States. One benefit of this influence is that Qatar tends to be parenthetically mentioned at most when American media outlets fret about sinister foreign influence.
The Chinese government talks about globalism a lot, but it has taken ruthless steps to insulate itself from the kind of political and economic interference it plans to inflict upon others. Authoritarian regimes think globalism is a sucker’s game rigged in their favor, a game they can scarcely believe open societies are willing to play. The tougher CFIUS scrutiny described by Vox is a tiny fraction of the regulatory weight China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or any other authoritarian regime is prepared to bring down upon foreign investors.

No comments: